Matthew 7:6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

1 Peter 3:15: Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

Hateful dehumanizing rhetoric, that dismisses anyone that doesn't believe you at face value.

The bible is actually filled with such language, in fact every reference to a non-believer is accompanied by pejorative laced phrases. Non-believers are liars, antichrist, fools, the enemy, etc.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

It says "be ready to give an answer to anyone that asks" and not "give an answer to anyone that asks."

In my opinion this means a Christian should educate himself so he is able to talk about his faith with others and not that he must continually give answers to those that are not open to any agreement with him.

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

It says "be ready to give an answer to anyone that asks" and not "give an answer to anyone that asks."

In my opinion this means a Christian should educate himself so he is able to talk about his faith with others and not that he must continually give answers to those that are not open to any agreement with him.

I can see that. It would have been nice, though, if Paul had given some guidelines as to who is "worthy" of an answer and who is not. Especially from a God who is supposed to not wish "that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Logged

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

It says "be ready to give an answer to anyone that asks" and not "give an answer to anyone that asks."

In my opinion this means a Christian should educate himself so he is able to talk about his faith with others and not that he must continually give answers to those that are not open to any agreement with him.

Just not educate enough to actually argue in the affirmative of said beliefs or explain why anyone would reach any conclusion, just dismiss them out of hand at face value if they don't believe you.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

I can see that. It would have been nice, though, if Paul had given some guidelines as to who is "worthy" of an answer and who is not. Especially from a God who is supposed to not wish "that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

I think paul was too busy arbitrarily declaring his own authority, in terms that would be considered laughable in any academic or intellectual sense. His authority becomes interchangeable with 'gods' authority by his own assertion alone. Sort of like our friend JST here, or virtually any theist that interjects their own interpretative authority at random.

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Of course, why would anyone ever believe paul?

Well, that certainly didn't concern anyone enough to bother explaining why it shouldn't. So why be mystified that the bible no more offers a reason to be dutifully believed or explanatory when it comes to any other conditional belief?

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

The best part about Paul is that, like any good cult leader, he includes the rhetoric to dismiss anyone out of hand that isn't compelled by his own words:

2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed

Which describes much of 2 Thessalonians 3, his authority 3, his authority s assumed by the declarative of how he behaves. Yet, the appeal is purely insular in that the in group can always make that claim and like any good biblical tautology.. it can be used to reinforce anyone's declarative authority. Of course, the audience has to believe for it to mean anything, and if they don't they are damned.. not worthy of keeping company with.

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

A lot of Paul's writing comes off as a religious sycophant, delivering appeals that serve to reinforce an audience that truly want's to believe, yet made obscure enough to argue for anything.

1 Corinthians 14 is a good example of this:

( summarized )

1 Corinthians 14:4-54 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues,[c] unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Anything, regardless of how obscure, can be interpreted to be relevant to reinforcing the body of the church. The rhetoric is vague enough that individuals can and will interpret their own emotional behavior to confirm what they want to believe. Much like how a popularity cult operates, with the leader driving his 'flock' into emotional fervor. By any outside observer this is a mindless appeal that can never be distinguished from it actually being authentic.

Of course, Paul wants sound reasonable right?

1 Corinthians 14:10-1210 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.

Of course, if we don't know the meaning of what you're saying then we can't understand it. Now where are you going to try to explain.. Paul? .. Paul?

1 Corinthians 14:1313 For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say.

And we're back to a rhetorical platitude, of course meaningless to anyone who doesn't want to interpret it to appeal to what they want to believe. Christianity wasn't off to a good start intellectually speaking if this was the best that it's loudest most obnoxious proselytizers had to offer.

1 Corinthians 14:23-2523 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!

What's a good finish without a grandiose declaration of how the non-believers will fall to their knees, because as true believers of not only the tongue but prophesy.... it can't be any other way.

Of course those that don't listen can be dismissed out of hand.

Where is Paul delivering an argument that anyone couldn't deliver themselves to claim any religious belief, even the contradictory belief to what Paul claims?

How would you determine two preachers, delivering the same message, but for the benefit of different religions apart in authority?

« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 10:18:18 PM by Omen »

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

If he and Paul, in their writings to the diaspora when the Kingdom was removed (Matt 21:43), had taught the exact same things that the Lord did to Israel in the land with a Kingdom come unto them (Luke 10: 9), they would be liars.

All Scripture is good "for instruction", but not all Scripture is "about us".

You're insistence on criticizing two different messages to a people you don't know makes you the sycophant. Do you understand?

If he and Paul, in their writings to the diaspora when the Kingdom was removed (Matt 21:43), had taught the exact same things that the Lord did to Israel in the land with a Kingdom come unto them (Luke 10: 9), they would be liars.

All Scripture is good "for instruction", but not all Scripture is "about us".

You're insistence on criticizing two different messages to a people you don't know makes you the sycophant. Do you understand?

euroclydon ,

I agree that the original post was weak in attempting to show a discrepancy, and had you not posted, I might have. However, and this is the point: All that could have been pointed out without resorting to personal invective.

GB Mod

« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 11:19:56 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

You're insistence on criticizing two different messages to a people you don't know makes you the sycophant. Do you understand?

Do you understand what the word sycophant means? It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does, from the way you tried to throw it back in Omen's face.

A sycophant is a servile flatterer, seeking to improve their self-importance by kissing up to someone else. Omen is using the word correctly in the context of his post; you may not agree with his characterization of Paul, but in terms of the point he's making, he is correct. I think, if you're honest about it, you'll have to agree that your own use of the word was incorrect, as there is no way Omen's behavior can be characterized by sycophancy, not even towards other atheists here. Indeed, the fact that Omen was being critical directly contradicts the idea that he was being sycophantic.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

If he and Paul, in their writings to the diaspora when the Kingdom was removed (Matt 21:43), had taught the exact same things that the Lord did to Israel in the land with a Kingdom come unto them (Luke 10: 9), they would be liars.

All Scripture is good "for instruction", but not all Scripture is "about us".

Dividing the Bible up into seperate dispensations/covenants/etc. certainly makes it easier to explain things away. That's one thing Christianity does have up on other religions. Almost any inconsistency can somehow be ascribed as only pertaining to this or that time when God acted a certain way but no longer acts that way. Or when God dealt only with a specific people but now deals with everyone. Etc., etc.

Logged

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

If he and Paul, in their writings to the diaspora when the Kingdom was removed (Matt 21:43), had taught the exact same things that the Lord did to Israel in the land with a Kingdom come unto them (Luke 10: 9), they would be liars.

All Scripture is good "for instruction", but not all Scripture is "about us".

Dividing the Bible up into seperate dispensations/covenants/etc. certainly makes it easier to explain things away. That's one thing Christianity does have up on other religions. Almost any inconsistency can somehow be ascribed as only pertaining to this or that time when God acted a certain way but no longer acts that way. Or when God dealt only with a specific people but now deals with everyone. Etc., etc.

It's not something from apologetics, though. The change from the old to the new covenant was a fundamental change in the way God interacts with humanity, which expanded His outreach from Israel to the entire world, obsoleted the various ceremonial laws which included the institution of animal sacrifices, etc. This is clearly outlined in the epistles, and also by Jesus Himself.

Gods covenant relationship with mankind is a poorly understood topic even in Christian circles, so I don't blame atheists for not seeing the difference, or thinking that Christians are making it up to explain away something difficult. If you do some research, you'll see that theologians have been writing about the subject for nearly 2000 years..

Actually burnish...it seems far more plausible that a certain group decided that the OT was rather harsh and barbaric, so they hijacked it, and wrote a new version. Christianity is nothing more than a split from Judaism.

Actually burnish...it seems far more plausible that a certain group decided that the OT was rather harsh and barbaric, so they hijacked it, and wrote a new version. Christianity is nothing more than a split from Judaism.

If that's true then why would Jesus affirm everything in it? He didn't split from it at all, as far as judgment and affirming the events of the OT went. And if you read Revelation, you'll see that harsh judgments are still in full effect.

The connection between Christianity and Judaism is that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah. The reason there is a split is because the jews rejected Him, like they did most of the other prophets God sent them. If you read the OT, you'll see that the jews barely ever listened to God, and that they murdered, persecuted or ignored their prophets on a regular basis.

The reason there is a split is because the jews rejected Him, like they did most of the other prophets God sent them. If you read the OT, you'll see that the jews barely ever listened to God, and that they murdered, persecuted or ignored their prophets on a regular basis.

Those fricken jews. Makes you wonder why yhwh ever chose them in the first place.

Or the other answer could be that jesus H didn't actually meet the criteria of "messiah".

Matthew 7:6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

1 Peter 3:15: Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

I don't know if this has already been pointed out, but these two statements are not contradictory.

First: If someone is unworthy of the word of God, don't waste your time and energy trying to force it on them.Second: If someone asks you about God with genuine interest and humility, answer his questions.

While much of the bible is contradictory nonsense, this isn't.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

I believe Matthew 7:6 refers to our God given ability to love each other.

If we have the ability to love others and know that God has commanded us to love them, but we judge and criticize them instead, we have taken the holy thing (love) and cast it before dogs and hogs (evil spirits). We have opened a door for those spirits to trample on holy things and turn and tear us to pieces. The Everyday Life Bible (Amplified Version)

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy (and acknowledge Him) as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy (and acknowledge Him) as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully.

I believe Matthew 7:6 refers to our God given ability to love each other.

If we have the ability to love others and know that God has commanded us to love them, but we judge and criticize them instead, we have taken the holy thing (love) and cast it before dogs and hogs (evil spirits). We have opened a door for those spirits to trample on holy things and turn and tear us to pieces. The Everyday Life Bible (Amplified Version)

I don't want anyone to think I am preaching. I am just trying to illustrate how different translations and different interpretations can show completely different attitudes.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.